rather_dashing

I know all of the pentatonic and the boxes attached, but are there any other patterns or structures you can play that are guaranteed to go with a song based on the key?

__________________
my band----> http://www.purevolume.com/allthatisgood

Geldin

Basically, whatever sounds good to you is what "works".

Take what you know and expand on it. You know pentatonic boxes. Now expand that to knowing how to construct a pentatonic scale in a given key. If you know major/minor scale boxes, learn how to construct those scales in a given key. If you can do all that, learn where to find any note anywhere on the fretboard.

When you can do that, learn to listen and plan what you'll play.

When you can do that, there's nothing more that I can tell you that'll get you better.

__________________
My solo progressive metal project,
The Sleeping Fury ,
has a just released its debut album.

The new album is streaming here

I've got a blog! It's a metal blog. About metal.

steven seagull

You don't make music by looking at patterns or structures, you make music by listening to sounds.

So stop focussing so much on the physical aspects of what you're doing and start listening more

__________________
Actually called Mark!


...it's a seagull



stuffmycatswatchontv.tumblr.com

Jehannum

^ This a joke?

Zaphod_Beeblebr

Unfortunately the information you've given is inaccurate in one important way:

If you're playing in a certain key, the modes don't exist. You don't start playing in a mode just by starting a scale in a different place; if the piece you're playing over resolves to A and is minor then you're playing in A minor.

Dividing up the fretboard like that is a decent idea and does have benefits but associating it with modes is a fundamental misunderstanding very common in guitarists.

Also I would question your emphasis on developing your ear later; it should be something you do all the time. Over-emphasis on shapes and muscle memory leads to playing the same sounds and licks all the time without thinking which really isn't what anyone wants, I'm sure we can agree.

__________________

steven seagull

Off to MT with you

Aeolian Wolf...I choose YOU!!!!

__________________
Actually called Mark!


...it's a seagull



stuffmycatswatchontv.tumblr.com

Zaphod_Beeblebr

I don't think you understand occam's razor... Occam's Razor states that when deciding between a set of hypotheses the one that makes the least assumptions is likely to be the best. Doesn't exactly apply to this situation because there are no hypotheses to decide between.

I'm not splitting hairs about the intricacies of modes, I'm saying to you that involving modes is the opposite of helpful if TS doesn't understand basic diatonic theory. Modes are heavily involved with resolution, strict diatonic chord progressions and many other things; you don't need them to learn the fretboard, especially not if all you're going to use them for is naming things that don't actually exist in the context you're working in. Breaking the neck up in to manageable sections isn't modal, it's nothing to do with modes.

I would also suggest that since all music theory is built on a solid understanding of the fundamentals and if you misunderstand basic scale construction by involving modes then that's a flaw that will only propagate through your musical life and hinder you when/if you try to learn more advanced things.

Why you would decide to take time out of ear training for learning the fretboard when you could concentrate on what you're doing all the time and gain constant experience is beyond me. It's not a mutually exclusive operation.

Finally: I'm not alone in this view. Almost every knowledgeable person on this forum will tell you the same thing. Involving modes in learning basic scales is at best confusing and at worst damaging to a student's overall learning.

__________________

MaggaraMarine

The scale shapes are also called "modes." But you aren't playing modally when you play those shapes. They are all shapes of major scale. You are playing the major scale, not the modes. For example if the progression is C - F - G - C and you are playing the "dorian position" (second shape of the major scale, in this case starting with D), you are still playing C major scale. You can play in all of the positions and you are still in C major so you are not playing in B locrian or E phrygian. And that's really confusing. I mean, there's nothing wrong with calling the shapes with the mode names because they really are the notes in that mode. But it's very misleading. People think "now I'm playing modally" when they play over a C major progression with the "lydian shape" starting with F.

EDIT:

"Playing E aeolian in the key of G..." This is exactly what I was talking about. You are playing the G major scale in a different position but it's still a G major scale, not E aeolian in that context (because the key is G major). E minor and G major aren't the same thing. The scales share the same notes but the keys are different and sound different. (E minor key center is E and G major key center is G.) "Aeolian" in this case is just the name of the position, which IMO is pretty stupid.

Modes aren't scale shapes, they were "keys" before major and minor. They were used in pre-17th century back when there was no tonal music. Modal music doesn't have harmony like tonal does.

__________________
My motto: Play what the song needs you to play!

Gear:

Charvel So Cal (MIJ)
Digitech RP355
MXR Micro Chorus
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48

rather_dashing

Good debate i guess...... I know the major and the modes, but i dont like how you can translate them by key. Is there anything else like the pentatonic that is dependent on key?

__________________
my band----> http://www.purevolume.com/allthatisgood

EmilGD

Do you even know what a key is?
If not, you need to go back to basic and make sure you understand functional harmony among other things, before you'll have much, if any usage of what is being discussed here. When properly understanding this you'll probably find that you won't need formulas, and that they might seem to limit you more than they help, at least that's my experience.





Also, I don't like avocados.

Zaphod_Beeblebr

That example follows Occam's Razor but you don't seem to actually understand why: the razor states that in attempting to explain something, the one that makes the least assumptions is likely to be true. The first person in your example assumes a method, assumes a lot of knowledge, assumes that a mathematical framework for expressing emotion exists and many other things. Petrucci's explanation is likely to be true because it only assumes that Page's technique was sloppy, which isn't even an assumption because it is something that can be proven empirically.

The modes aren't the simplest way of dealing with the issue of learning to play over a certain key because they add extra names and terminology that are not needed. It is simple to define the consonant tones in a key because all you need is the scale that relates to the key. Example: A minor... the A minor scale; the notes ABCDEFG. That's about as simple as it gets.

__________________

Jehannum

I really wish people would stop propagating mode names as fretboard positions. It's possibly the dumbest, most useless and most misleading thing I've seen in the sphere of guitar playing. When I become the dictator of the world the punishment for this will be life imprisonment.

Jehannum

Don't tell me you're a ****ing teacher. I pity your students.

Appeal to authority - even if it is James Hetfield or some **** from Berklee College - is not an argument. All that after banging on about Ockham's Razor.

AeolianWolf

looks like i HAVE to respond now.



all i have to add is that this is, logically speaking, an extremely valid viewpoint. 20T made a reference to the other thread about how the system in question has been attributed to such great names like leonard bernstein. i could have argued that the system i utilize has been attributed to such great names as bach, mozart, and beethoven, but it seemed pretty obvious to me that anyone could simply counter with the "music has evolved since then" argument, which is completely bullshit (music has absolutely evolved, but decidedly modes have not evolved, unless anyone wants to tell me the major scale is different than it was in haydn's day). music has evolved past modes. people have simply found a way to make them relevant (perhaps inadvertently so, but it's not germane at this point).

anyone is also welcome to tell me that "because it worked for someone famous, it's obviously the best and most correct way" -- at which point, i won't even come in and counter your argument. it should be obvious enough to everyone here that anyone using such an argument does such a sufficient job of proving their own idiocy that they don't need me to point it out.

i've said it before, and i'll say it again - there are two types of music: tonal and atonal. if i write something using the notes D E F G A B C and i resolve to D, the piece is in D minor. could it be said to be a modal piece? or be said to be in D dorian? assuming there are no accidentals, then yes, that is absolutely true - it could be said to be modal, and it could be said to be in D dorian. but ultimately, it's just diluting the fact that the piece is still tonal. what people like to call "modal" music still falls under the category of tonal music, in that it has a tonal center. it's really that simple. if i am playing a piece in a major key that strictly remains diatonic, it could be said to be in the ionian mode (or the major mode). but the second i utilize a D# chromatic passing tone to get to E in the key of D major, i have broken the confines of the mode, and the music is no longer in the ionian mode. it can now only be described as being in a major key (unless someone wants to try and complicate things further and tell me that i'm not in a major key, but simply switching from D major to C phrygian dominant).

even the jazz greats that wrote compositions that push the envelope of tonal music do not eschew it completely. jazz works in that realm can absolutely be described as being tonal. keys will change (and sometimes quite rapidly), but tonal music absolutely allows for such an occurrence. there are times when analyzing such a piece would be easier, less confusing, or otherwise neater using CST rather than a key-based approach, and that is the truth. however, this has nothing to do with modes, but scales. it is not chord-mode theory, it is chord-scale theory.

modes have nothing to do with positions of the fretboard - they're two completely separate ideas. whether or not a mode is being utilized has nothing to do with any physical aspect of playing guitar -- it has to do with the harmony and overall context of the music going on around it.

for a simple ii-V-I in C, it is possible to think of playing over it using D dorian, G mixolydian, and C ionian. first off, let me say that even if this approach were considered, this would not make it modal. i think that's pretty obvious to everyone. but let me get to my real point - the complete driving factor behind my school of thought is efficiency. why should i think of using three scales over three chords when the entire thing is so neat that i can simply use one? this is a basic example, but if you make things more complex, it will still stand true. note how i said that there are times when using CST will be preferable to sticking to a key-based approach. this does not mean that those complex pieces are not in a key (or keys, as it were), simply that it may be neater to analyze them using chord-scale theory. to speak figuratively, you will not be looking at the piece in its true form, but converting it in a way that makes sense to you. think of it like listening to a song in a foreign language. say you pop gangnam style on and you spontaneously make up nonsense lyrics based on what you hear. you have something, but it is not the original work.

there is much more to the issue at hand, but i don't feel a prolonged discussion about any such matter to be necessary.

__________________

| Facebook (personal) | Facebook (music) | SoundCloud | Instagram |

HotspurJr

THe major or minor scale that matches the key of the song.

However, it has to be emphasized that music doesn't flow from a pattern on the fretboard, it flows from your ear and brain. While everybody spends a small amount of time learning patterns as patterns, you want to move as quickly as practically possible to NOT thinking of a scale as a collection of "guaranteed" safe notes, but rather as a collection of notes that have their own individual relationships to the tonic note.

That's how you make real music.

Worrying about modes is silly. Yes, I'm in favor of learning the fretboard but the mode-names way is confusing and out-dated. (Nearly everyone uses the CAGED system these days). But ultimately, learning the shapes is a part of the road, not the destination. The destination is making music with your mind, which means training your ear.

AeolianWolf

i just realized that while i gave clear and outlining definitions, i didn't actually help TS, so let me do so by saying that this post is pretty much dead-on.

ultimately, all of this theory stuff is 90% pointless if you don't have the ear to match it.

__________________

| Facebook (personal) | Facebook (music) | SoundCloud | Instagram |

EmilGD

It's wild west in MT, lol.

AeolianWolf

a couple of things i feel i need to bring up:



you're 100% correct. but here's the thing, he's not the one using the "appeal to authority argument" -- you are. by claiming that your teacher is a berklee graduate (and therefore insinuating that your teacher [although he probably was skilled, i've never seen an unskilled musician come out of berklee] had all the correct information and knowledge by assuming that everything berklee teaches is 100% correct), you're appealing to authority. also, don't tell me that every teacher knows exactly what they're talking about, even at a higher institution. the institutions of religion have been around for thousands of years and just by their very existence, some (if not all, but that's a debate for another time and place) must be completely incorrect. everyone around here knows i'm an atheist, so i won't get into that.



no one is saying that the patterns and the visual methods don't work - in fact, they're a necessary component of the physical aspects of playing guitar (even if you don't learn them explicitly, you're bound to arrive at them conclusively sooner or later). they're simply saying that they're not modes. it's kind of false - i mean, if you play a major scale, you're by definition playing an ionian mode, but that doesn't make the music you create modal by any means. once the bush has been beaten around satisfactorily, that's the point that's really being made.

__________________

| Facebook (personal) | Facebook (music) | SoundCloud | Instagram |

Zaphod_Beeblebr

There's a mathematical proof that 1+1=2, I'm sure that could be extended to 2+2=4. The appeal to authority doesn't render something false, it is a call for actual proof.



I love that you think this is somehow personal.

I reported that post because by the rules of this forum you were advertising your youtube channel, your thread was locked so the staff agree with me. You then said something inaccurate so I picked you up on it. I'm not picking at you and frankly I find it laughable that you think I've picked up some kind of personal vendetta against you in the space of two days.

I should probably also mention that ability is not a prerequisite of criticism and at no point did I say that I could play any better than you. I didn't mention anyone's actual playing ability.

__________________